Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam, returned to the public eye this year when a chairwoman of the anti-Trump Women’s March, having attended his annual “Savior’s Day” celebration—where he shared some of his poisonous anti-Semitic theories—praised him and then defended him against his critics. Separately, an African-American Washington, DC city councilman, also a Farrakhan supporter, gave a speech accusing the Rothschilds of controlling the weather. To James Kirchick, these and other incidents portend an upsurge of anti-Semitism among American blacks. He writes:

[T]he prevalence of, and insouciance toward, anti-Semitism in the African-American community mirrors a trend within the broader progressive community. On the left, anti-Semitism is increasingly downplayed because it supposedly [targets] people who are “white” and therefore in possession of “power.” . . .

Writing nearly 30 years ago, Shelby Steele recognized the “fundamental irony” of “black–Jewish bickering”—that is, “the irony of there being conflict where we presume there should be harmony”—that guarantees these periodic outbursts will always generate headlines. Most blacks seek no conflict with Jews, and vice-versa. Which is why it is all the more important for responsible black leaders to draw a line in the sand when it comes to toxic figures like Farrakhan, and to reject the excuses of their enablers. A political coalition that makes room for the likes of such individuals is one that will inherently be unwelcoming to Jews, and one that all decent people should reject.

The recent controversies are not so much a reflection of a major, growing rift between blacks and Jews as they are indications of two competing visions for America. On one side stands an increasingly fatalistic progressivism, which maintains a “no enemies to the left” strategy in fighting a twilight struggle against what it considers to be an incipient fascist dictatorship [in the form of Donald Trump’s presidency] and is willing to make common cause with all manner of illiberal and regressive political forces provided they hew to the party line. And on the other side sits the postwar American liberal tradition of pluralistic patriotism to which Jews of all political stripes have so faithfully pledged allegiance. All Americans, not just blacks and Jews, have an interest in the outcome of this conflict.

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.